"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

“Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground.”
— Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

“Woman’s biology oppresses her only when she relates to men. The basis of the inequality of the sexes here is seen as the inequality inherent in heterosexual intercourse as a result of sex-specific anatomy. To transcend or avoid this in personal life by having sexual relations only with women — lesbianism — eliminates the gender-based underpin­nings of sexual inequality in this view. . . . Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of its dominant form, heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

“In the early 1970s both gay and feminist movements concurred in critiques of patriarchal, heterosexual institutions, such as the family, and there was a sense of common cause. . . . [A]ddressing the patriarchal structures that shaped family life, revealing women’s discontents with heterosexual relationships . . . feminists laid the foundation for a thoroughgoing critique of heterosexuality . . .”
— Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Theorizing Sexuality (2010)

One of the fundamental principles of logic is that you cannot reach a true conclusion if your argument is based on a false premise. Feminists have been proving this for nearly 50 years.

It should have been obvious from the moment the Women’s Liberation Movement emerged in the late 1960s that feminists would ultimately fail to bring about the “equality” they promised, and that this radical movement would inflict enormous damage to American society. Here we are, decades later, and young feminists who were not even born when this movement began are vehemently insisting that they are victims of an “oppression” for which “all men” are to blame. What feminists now demand — as a bare minimum, sine qua non — is that Hillary Rodham Clinton (Wellesley College, Class of 1969; Yale Law School, Class of 1973) be elected President of the United States, and feminists will condemn everyone who opposes Hillary’s election as a misogynist.

The Bernie Sanders campaign is a token resistance to the foregone conclusion of the Clinton nomination, and it does not matter who the Republican Party nominates as its candidate. In 2016, feminists will attempt to convince the electorate that the only people who will vote Republican on Nov. 8 are those who hate women. Anticipating this attack (it has been evident for many months now) it is necessary for conservatives to understand what feminism actually means, so that they can explain to the American people why “equality” is wrong.

This requires an argument that is as difficult to make in 21st-century America as it was in 18th-century France. Long before the outbreak of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, Edmund Burke foresaw the danger inherent in the premise of the radical rhetoric of “equality.” That the revolution ended in the establishment of a military dictatorship under Napoleon should suffice to prove that Burke’s warnings were prophetic. Furthermore, as must be obvious to any student of history, the radicalism of Jacobin France was the inspiration of Marxist socialism, which in turn inspired the Bolshevik Revolution, which led to the dictatorship of Josef Stalin. Over and over, we see the same lesson repeated: Radicals promise “equality,” and the end result is tyranny. Only a fool would expect feminism to deviate from this precedent, and what we see on university campuses today — where opposition to feminism is effectively prohibited — is a foreshadowing of what we might expect under the regime of President Hillary Clinton.

Explaining what is wrong with the politics of “equality” is never easy. Everyone can think of some unfairness they have experienced in life, and it is easy to accept “equality” as a synonym for fairness, which is why a political rhetoric that promises “equality” has such an enduring popular appeal. It takes a lot more thought, and a consideration of consequences that are not apparent in the superficial discourse of campaign slogans, to realize that (a) measures intended to create “equality” are generally both harmful to society and expensive to taxpayers, and (b) “equality” itself is ultimately an impossible goal. Of course, if you are willing to run up a national debt of nearly $19 trillion, the expense of “equality” may be something taxpayers can ignore. However, as Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, and not even the wealthiest nation on Earth can forever postpone paying its debts. Perhaps there are those who would justify such reckless spending in the name of “equality,” yet we are told that the gap between the rich and poor keeps growing, despite the many trillions of dollars that have been spent to help the poor since Lyndon Johnson inaugurated his “War on Poverty” policy in the 1960s. When you listen to Democrats talk, it seems as if they have forgotten what Ronald Reagan said in his 1988 State of the Union address:

My friends, some years ago, the Federal Government declared war on poverty, and poverty won. Today the Federal Government has 59 major welfare programs and spends more than $100 billion a year on them. What has all this money done? Well, too often it has only made poverty harder to escape. Federal welfare programs have created a massive social problem. With the best of intentions, government created a poverty trap that wreaks havoc on the very support system the poor need most to lift themselves out of poverty: the family. Dependency has become the one enduring heirloom, passed from one generation to the next, of too many fragmented families.

By attempting to make government a substitute for the family, liberal anti-poverty programs “created a massive social problem” that Democrats are now evidently determined to make even worse.

The Democrat Party is committed to feminism, and feminism is committed to the destruction of the family. Feminists have spent decades denouncing marriage and motherhood as “patriarchal structures” by which “all men have oppressed women.” What is their motive?

The feminist myth that their movement is about rectifying an unjust inequality is exposed as a self-serving lie once you begin examining the biographies of the leading proponents of feminist ideology. Catharine MacKinnon, for example, is the daughter of a Republican congressman and judge; her family’s wealth enabled her to attend elite schools (Smith College and Yale University) and to spend 18 years writing her grand opus, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. It is astonishing to read, in the preface of her 1989 book (p. xiv), that the first chapter “was written in 1971-72, revised in 1975, and published in Signs in 1982.” Only an extraordinary sort of financial security can explain how a writer could be able to wait a full decade between writing the first draft of an essay and its initial publication. During the intervening years, MacKinnon published The Sexual Harassment of Working Women (1979) just two years after graduating from Yale Law School. This Marxist daughter of a Republican father was able to make herself an “expert” on the problems of “working women” precisely because she never had to work a day in her life.

“We are angry because we are oppressed by male supremacy. We have been f–ked over all our lives by a system which is based on the domination of men over women, which defines male as good and female as only as good as the man you are with. It is a system in which heterosexuality is rigidly enforced and Lesbianism rigidly suppressed.”

So wrote Ginny Berson in the 1972 cover story of the first issue of The Furies, the lesbian-feminist newspaper published by a radical Washington, D.C.-based collective founded by Charlotte Bunch. Both of these women were the beneficiaries of elite education. Charlotte Bunch graduated from Duke University in 1966, and Ginny Berson graduated in 1967 from Mount Holyoke College, one of the prestigious “Seven Sisters,” the all-women’s colleges that were analogous to the Ivy League, back when elite schools like Harvard, Yale and Columbia were all-male. Annual tuition for the 2015-2016 academic year is $49,341 at Duke and $43,886 at Mount Holyoke, so the claim that privileged women like Charlotte Bunch and Ginny Berson were “oppressed” and “f–ked over” by “male supremacy” was as manifestly absurd in 1972 as it is today.

Feminism is a movement led by privileged women who seek to gain money and power for themselves by advocating an ideology which aims to destroy the family as the basis of society. The consequences of such a movement’s success will not be “equality,” but rather the destruction of all hope for happiness for many millions of American women who do not have the advantages of wealth, social privilege and elite education that feminists like Hillary Clinton take for granted. As Burke said of the French Revolution, feminists “therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things,” and anyone who thinks that President Hillary Clinton will do anything else is in for a rude awakening.

Feminism: Death Cult Chaos https://t.co/rHYY88n3XZ "…'equality' requires the destruction of morality." And the normalization of madness.

Comments

The problem is, with the Baby Boom generation, of which I’m at the tail end, it was determined the culture precluded the glorification of self in all things, and that life could and therefore should be lived without risk, adversity, paid or discomfort of any kind. And so, those aspects of culture which hindered the pursuit of self-aggrandizement began to be jettisoned pell-mell. The people who could have stopped it were not politicians but ordinary people. The reason they did not, was because deep down, they wanted the “freedom” to do what they wished.

The classic example of this is “no-fault” divorce, which eliminated the grounds for dissolution of marriage for adultery or failure to support or abuse, with the offending party being punished for the breakup of a marriage in favor of ending a union and destroying children on a whim. Where were the Christians and cultural conservatives during that fight? Nowhere. And the moment the cultural conservatives acquiesced to that, is the moment all the crap we see today became inevitable.

http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

*shrugs*

For some of the folks I deal with, equality is all about justice. I agree that the kids are stealing a view.

Finrod Felagund

Only if she’s a judge.

Finrod Felagund

Saying “A implies B” says nothing about “not A”.

To quote “Weird Al” Yankovic, _Pancreas_:

My pancreas attracts every other
Pancreas in the universe
With a force proportional
To the product of their masses
And inversely proportional
To the distance between them

That statement says nothing about the matter in the universe that isn’t part of a pancreas.

I think it’s funny that we let gays have their fake marriage at the moment it became worthless. I would rather have a commitment ceremony with no documents filed with the government, since they incentivize divorce now.

Peregrine John

See also the recent Victorian-era New Year’s episode of BBC’s Sherlock.